Dr Clare Craig Profile picture
Oct 5 18 tweets 5 min read Read on X
The latest Pfizer safety report shows a massive cardiovascular signal

and also shows some very odd data.

Let's start with the first. 🧵
NHR and PHARMO are different European databases.

The total number of cardiovascular events of any type works out at a risk of

1 in 264 for NHR
and
1 in 362 for PHARMO Image
By contrast the claimed risk of severe covid was reduced by

1 in 2403 for NHR
and
1 in 5181 for PHARMO Image
Pfizer admit there is a signal in the PHARMO database but they have a plan to make it disappear...

"it could be possible to model some constructive bias analysis to correct this in the final analysis."Image
If you had a new set of aircraft and there was a report of a problem from one country - would you ignore it because the others had not reported a problem?

Would you fudge the data from the concerning country by modelling it to look like the other countries?
There are differences between these datasets.

People in the PHARMO dataset were healthier - they had a far lower incidence of death, for example.

Signals are easier to see in healthier datasets because they are less likely to be lost in the background noise. Image
You may wonder why the deaths are higher in the unvaccinated.

The well recognised healthy vaccinee effect means that those who are about to die reject the vaccine and end up inflating the mortality of the unvaccinated.
However, Pfizer did not do analysis having excluded this period.

They also did no analysis by age group except for myocarditis.

Because of low background rates in younger age groups signals would be more obvious if these were analysed separately.
One way to reduce the risk of this bias would be to only look at people who were sick in the week before vaccination or matching (if unvaccinated).

This was the plan (although maybe they meant it as an exclusion criteria?): Image
Until the EMA stopped it.

They did not ask for analysis only of those who had contact with health care system prior to injection or matching! Image
Now for the odd data.

Given the healthy vaccinee effect, the unvaccinated should have higher rates of any condition in the first 60 days.

But they do not. Image
What is more odd is that the number of people is huge at the beginning but rapidly reduces.

This is because the unvaccinated are matched to the vaccinated. When they get vaccinated that pairing is dropped.

That should mean huge numbers of events in the first 60 days. e.g. Image
Independent evidence is consistent in showing a higher rate of covid in the first two weeks.

Pfizer claims the opposite (except for PHARMO)! Image
Despite the clear issues there are still really concerning signals like this one:

They weren't even looking at myocarditis / pericarditis until asked to in December 2021! Image
Independent scientists need to be doing this work not companies with a vested interest.

But governments have made the data available only to the latter!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Clare Craig

Dr Clare Craig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClareCraigPath

Dec 15
The last 4 years has been a period of modelling based on assumptions laundered through the medical literature and called "The Science".

If you thought the "real world" evidence was more reliable think again. 🧵
@Jikkyleaks has exposed a massive fraud at the heart of the covid literature.

Instead of using the difficult, fragmented and hard to collate data from the actual real world, pharma sponsored datasets which contain modelled synthetic data were used.
Like all models this synthetic data will have been based on prior assumptions:

assumptions like vaccines preventing 96% of infections.

The consequent results stand out ludicrous disprovable claims.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 9
Today saw the release of minutes for the working group set up to advise MHRA on the covid vaccines.

They knew the issues but ignored them...🧵
On 27th November they briefly discussed a lack of any potential benefit for the under 50s but quickly concluded that there was a favourable risk/benefit for anyone aged over 16 years!

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67503fbc…Image
They made the case that the already infected should be injected because of lack of evidence of risk!

What about the fact they didn't need it! Image
Read 25 tweets
Dec 4
I have been working on the MHRA funding model today.

It's awful.

There was no money to keep the public safe.

🧵
86% of MHRA funding comes from fees.

bmj.com/content/377/bm…

But MHRA do not set the fees.
MHRA cannot adapt the fees to the circumstances.
The fees are set by legislation.

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/190/… Image
To take an extreme case, Herceptin was approved (by EMA) based on a trial of under 500 women.

If that happened today the fee would be £102,000 for MHRA licensing.

What would that cover?

gov.uk/government/pub…
Read 11 tweets
Dec 1
There is a LOT in common between the lockdown policies and the assisted dying bill.

Let's start with them both centring on the fear of death and both leveraging emotional appeals to justify extreme measures.

But there's much more...🧵
Lockdowns crossed a Rubicon in terms of civil rights - overturning the social contract.

Euthanasia crosses a Rubicon in terms of moral norms - again overturning the social contract.

Support and opposition to both policies has come from across traditional party lines.
In both cases government did not provide a risk benefit analysis.

In both cases government has not had input from ethics advisors.
Read 14 tweets
Nov 26
Here's a quick thread of Bad Covid Takes by the BBC.

Some are even from BBC Verify.

Let's start with mortality risk. For a man his age the meme was right (even with all the over diagnosed death).

BBC says 1%!
🧵 Image
Then we had the fear mongering about food shopping - before they admitted they were wrong.

"Use plastic bags only once." 🙄Image
To start: millions scared of using public transport

Then: No virus found in Feb 2021 Image
Read 14 tweets
Nov 22
This has really upset some people.

This is not about blaming individuals.

It is just pointing out the timing of societal changes and how that has coinicided with the boomers journey through life.

Was it the boomers or was it all something darker?
🧵
The Baby Boomers are reaching the end of their lives.

But what kind of society have they left behind?

Their influence reshaped life, truth, and beauty—often with unintended consequences.
Boomers promised freedom and compassion: the right to choose, the power to define truth, and the liberation of beauty from tradition.

But they often created new problems when trying to solve old ones. Image
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(